Islamic Hijab: A Sexual Perspective on Women or a Religious Obligation?

Is the Islamic hijab, which became mandatory in Iran after the 1979 revolution, one of the religious obligations for Muslims? A group of jurists and religious scholars answer this question negatively. They argue that what has been designated as mandatory hijab by the Islamic government in Iran lacks religious legitimacy and is not clearly referenced in the Quran, and is also not ethical. Soroush Dabagh, a researcher in religion and philosophy and author of the book "Hijab in Balance," belongs to this group of thinkers. In contrast, Sajjad Nik-Aeen, a religious researcher, states that according to the majority opinion of Shia and Sunni jurists, hijab is a religious obligation for Muslim women, which can lead to a more ethical society. This week's taboo discussion revolves around this topic. We start the program with Mr. Dabagh. Mr. Dabagh, if I want to get straight to the point, I will ask you whether hijab is a religious obligation for women in Islam? Soroush Dabagh: I am not a jurist, but as someone who works in the field of religious studies, I can explain that at least some jurists, specifically the late Ahmad Qabel, argue that covering the hair and neck does not have a religious necessity. Some Arab Muslim intellectuals who have worked in religious studies, such as Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid or Muhammad Abed al-Jabri, believe that in today's world, covering the hair and neck is not a religious necessity because its identity aspect was emphasized, and the distinction between free women and non-free women was the basis for issuing those rulings. Now that the system of slavery has been abolished, covering the head and neck is not among the religious obligations. If we set this aside along with some of the research that Mr. Amir Torkashvand has published about the limits of religious hijab and its history, and the explanation that the concept of 'qina' or 'maqna' does not refer to covering all of the hair and neck, it shows us that at least some jurists and religious scholars believe that covering the hair and neck of women in today's world does not have a religious obligation or, in other words, a legal obligation. Mr. Nik-Aeen! You have heard Mr. Dabagh's arguments summarized. He believes that hijab cannot be a religious obligation and has referred to legal opinions in this regard. What is your opinion on this? Is hijab a religious obligation? Sajjad Nik-Aeen: Well, he has presented opinions that the first objection to these opinions is their rarity, meaning they are outside the norm and rule of jurisprudence. He certainly knows that in jurisprudence, the very fame among the companions is a proof. Not to mention that there are clear and specific Quranic proofs. For example, Surah Al-Ahzab, verse 59, and Surah An-Nur, verse 31, explicitly reference the first evidence of jurists for the religious obligation of hijab. These two verses explicitly mention 'khumur,' 'maqna' and 'jilbab' - the long garment that Arab women wore to cover their other clothes and adornments. I mentioned that this is one of the most important reasons for jurists, and when jurists want to derive a religious ruling, their sources are the Quran, tradition, reason, and consensus. The tradition of the Prophet and the conduct of the infallibles, at least among Shia jurists, and the consensus of jurists have been on this. There is no doubt that from the perspective of the minimum certainty, hijab and adherence to hijab from a religious perspective is 'closest to piety.' I mean, from the perspective of observing religious caution, adhering to hijab and commitment to it is closer to piety. We certainly know this. I want to clarify that my statement does not imply that hijab is mandatory. This does not mean that now that we have reached the conclusion that hijab is required and desired by the sacred law, we should impose this hijab on the people... Yes, I will have a question for you about this later, Mr. Nik-Aeen... Nik-Aeen: Yes. I want to clarify this misunderstanding. Yes. Let’s see what points Mr. Dabagh has in response to you. Mr. Dabagh questions the jurisprudential sources you rely on, Mr. Nik-Aeen, and also considers their opinions to be among the rare views. The question I want to ask here relates to the Quran. Mr. Nik-Aeen referred to verses from the Quran that discuss 'maqna,' 'jilbab,' or covering adornments, but the point raised is that many believe these verses do not directly indicate the obligatory nature of hijab, contrary to Mr. Nik-Aeen's view. What explanation do you have regarding this? Dabagh: I have two observations in this regard. One is that there is no explicit mention of a headscarf here. I refer to the opinions of some mythologists and those who have expertise in the meanings of the words used in these verses and broadly in sacred texts. For example, Mr. Tahmasebi in Persian. The term 'khumur' used and 'jilbab' mentioned in another verse is a matter of consideration that does not explicitly indicate a headscarf, meaning something that denotes covering the hair and neck. The discussion is about what covers the breasts, and whether this refers to covering the entire head and neck is debatable. My research shows that in the discussion of hijab in the verses of Surah Al-Ahzab and An-Nur, the concepts that take precedence are chastity, lowering the gaze, preserving modesty, and avoiding ostentation, but there is no direct indication that covering the hair and neck is the subject of discussion. Another narrative can be derived from this. It is not the case that we emphasize 'khumur' and 'jilbab' and the story ends. This is the beginning of the discussion. This is a historical debate. Furthermore, this is not a legal discussion. The late Qabel was a qualified jurist. Being rare does not pose a problem. Yes, it is rare, but it indicates its permissibility. In other words, he, as a jurist, says that covering the hair and neck is not obligatory. This alone suffices as an opinion in the jurisprudential tradition. Historical studies show that women wore headscarves made of cloth and turbans on their heads, and their identity aspect in distinguishing free women from non-free women was significant. The second point is that the frequency of this story in the Quran is less compared to other topics. Just as Mr. Nik-Aeen pointed out, there are only two verses. Set this alongside the moral explanations regarding not cheating - 'Woe to those who give less' - mentioned in the Quran or the explanations regarding consuming the wealth of orphans - both its clarity and frequency. Very well. Mr. Dabagh, let’s return to Mr. Nik-Aeen. Mr. Nik-Aeen, if you want to respond to Mr. Dabagh, please keep it brief, but considering your own remarks... Nik-Aeen: Look, he mentioned that being rare does not pose a problem. In fact, the time of rarity is very relevant. Sometimes, for example, suppose in a time when the sacred Ardabili comes, free of mind, regardless of the fact that modernity has occurred, regardless of the fact that Muslims live in the West, he comes and discusses the equality of inheritance between men and women in that era. We certainly do not consider the rarity of that fatwa to be the same as the rarity of Mr. Qabel and other jurisprudential researchers, not jurists like Mr. Torkashvand. You see, the history of this famous rarity regarding hijab occurred under the influence of the onslaught and influence that Western culture has on all aspects of our lives. Under this influence, they have come to hold this rare opinion, but the premise is that we enter this historical discussion and say that well, in that era, Arab women wore headscarves; this is not the case. Arab women today and in that era also wore headscarves. There was no need for this to be explained. The issue is how this headscarf precisely defines the limits of coverage. When you refer to 'Tahdhib al-Lughah' or 'Muheet A'zam,' it says that 'jilbab' is a garment that covers the clothing and adornments underneath. It then goes on to discuss 'khumur,' saying it is a headscarf that covers the head, hair, and neck. The issue of free women and slaves was not necessarily raised. Similarly, leaving the discussion open without any linguistic reasoning... Very well, Mr. Nik-Aeen, to summarize this topic, let me ask you another question. You insist that hijab is a religious obligation. In your remarks, you said that this does not mean that hijab is mandatory. I ask you, after all, the religious ruler is obliged to enforce religious obligations. Do you not think that the very fact that we consider hijab to be a religious obligation can indicate its mandatory nature or the imposition of that hijab as a religious obligation by the religious ruler on the people? Nik-Aeen: No, there is no necessity in this matter. I will give you an example. Prayer is also a religious obligation, but the religious ruler does not monitor whether you pray or not. The duty of the religious ruler is not to enforce it. Moreover, especially for Shia and Imamiyah, the issue of establishing an Islamic government is not relevant in the era of occultation, and when you do not have an Islamic government, naturally, there will be no compulsion to force people to observe Islamic rulings. Did not women in the streets of Tehran and large cities in Iran before the revolution walk around with complete freedom regarding hijab? Bring a fatwa from a great authority before the revolution that instructed to go and enjoin good and forbid wrong and stop these women who are not hijab-compliant from going out in that condition according to the standards of Muslims. We have the example of Iraq. Now, Ayatollah Sistani is religiously active in Iraq, but hijab is not mandatory in Iraq. We have the same situation in southern Lebanon. Even though the group close to the Islamic Republic, Hezbollah, is there, hijab is not mandatory even for Shia. But here, this contradiction arises. How can an Islamic government be neutral regarding one of the religious obligations - Mr. Nik-Aeen considers hijab a religious obligation? Dabagh: Well, someone like him should answer, but we have heard his response that just as there is no monitoring regarding a religious ruling like prayer, there should not be in the case of hijab either. My position is clear. I believe that mandatory hijab is unethical, and I do not see it as among the activities and duties of governments. Mr. Dabagh, in your article "Hijab in the Balance of Ethics," which you recently included in the book "Hijab in Balance," you bring ethics into the discussion and fundamentally consider the compulsion of hijab to be unethical. I would like you to elaborate on this viewpoint here. Dabagh: I have tried to argue that both mandatory hijab is ethically rejected and unethical, and also, in addition to mandatory hijab, regarding optional hijab, all my arguments have been that not covering the hair and neck does not have ethical ugliness. Someone who is concerned about their way of practicing religion in today's world should pay attention to the narrative they provide about religion and religiousness, which should not contradict our clear moral intuitions. I am not saying that covering the hair and neck has ethical ugliness. No, that is not an unethical act at all. The issue is from this side. Not covering the hair and neck does not have ethical ugliness. I have categorized the natural act of covering or not covering the hair and neck under the title of chastity and have tried to argue that not covering the hair and neck does not entail a violation of chastity and does not constitute an immoral behavior in today's world. Instead of discussing hijab, we should discuss chastity and immorality, and what is unethical is immoral behavior. Very well, Mr. Dabagh. You are, of course, discussing chastity and immorality, which is an independent topic for discussion. Mr. Nik-Aeen, we return to you, and based on the points that Mr. Dabagh mentioned, I want to ask you why jurists are so sensitive about the issue of hijab and the covering and bodies of women in Islam? Is this a topic that has been equally prominent throughout Islamic history, or is it a contemporary occurrence? Nik-Aeen: Look, I want to mention a point regarding Dr. Dabagh's views; that bringing the topic under the title of chastity and non-chastity can be a kind of accusation against the other side. It may have been the prevailing thought among the devout that they equated non-hijab with non-chastity, but at least in the jurisprudential system, this has not been the case. Yes, hijab is a religious obligation, but non-hijab has not been considered non-chastity. But regarding why Islam has paid special attention to this issue, [this is] present in all religions. Even today, Orthodox Jews and even Christianity have such a view on the issue of hijab. Furthermore, the reason you see hijab under scrutiny today is solely because non-hijab in the modern era is a new and recent issue. Hijab has been so integrated into social customs - whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or even pre-Islamic Arab customs - that all accepted it, meaning women covered their heads, and the Quran came and said that the neck should also be covered. Islam has not introduced anything new, other than specifying the limits and boundaries. On the contrary, non-hijab is a new issue.